Judge Warns Attorneys to Stay on Topic on Eve of Roger Stone's Trial
Judge Amy Berman Jackson reiterated that she has already blocked certain topics from coming up during trial.
November 04, 2019 at 01:08 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia has a clear message ahead of Roger Stone's trial this week: Stick to the subject.
During a final pretrial conference Monday, Jackson told attorneys for both the Justice Department and Stone that they need to remain focused on the allegations in the case once the trial starts. Jury selection is set to begin Tuesday.
"We're going to follow the rules," she said from the bench. She said that if an attorney started discussing an area that wasn't covered by the trial, she would "politely" call them up to the bench.
"If you continue to disobey orders, I'm not going to give you the courtesy of coming to the bench," Jackson said, adding, "there's plenty to try within the confines of those boundaries."
The judge noted that she has already ruled on blocking certain topics from coming up during trial, which she reiterated throughout the hearing. Jackson has previously struck down efforts from Stone's legal team to include evidence relating to Russian hacking during the 2016 election.
Stone is charged with making false statements to Congress and witness tampering. He has pleaded not guilty.
Ahead of the start of Stone's trial Tuesday, Jackson made most of her final rulings on what evidence will be admitted.
She ruled against some pieces of evidence that Stone's lawyers wanted to admit, like emails between Stone and Randy Credico, an expected witness. She did rule in favor of emails showing that Stone and Credico were in talks for Stone to appear on Credico's radio show.
Jackson put off a ruling on whether to admit a portion of the House Intelligence Committee's minority report on Russian election interference. While she did allow for the section of the report regarding Stone to be admitted, she questioned the relevance of other portions, like those on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Bruce Rogow, Stone's attorney, argued those sections showed the scope of the House investigation. He said the perception around any efforts to reach WikiLeaks, as Stone did, had "morphed" into the idea that the person had done something wrong or illegal.
Jackson, seeming a bit frustrated, said again that Stone wasn't charged with contacting WikiLeaks but with lying about those attempted contacts.
"You're the one who keeps putting Russian interference in play," she said.
Attorneys also discussed the kinds of questions that can be put to witnesses. Jackson raised a motion filed by government lawyers that sought to limit the scope of questioning for one witness, likely former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
Jackson noted that the motion was filed under seal, but that she had seen reports naming the witness. A person familiar with Bannon's expected appearance during the trial confirmed late last month that Bannon would be a government witness.
The judge said DOJ lawyers had asked to keep questions related to the person's time on the Trump campaign, as privilege issues could be raised about the person's work on the Trump transition team or at the White House.
Rogow confirmed that Stone's team did not plan to pursue those topics, but that they might raise questions about the person's testimony if it conflicted with other recent comments about the same topic.
The judge said she expected jury selection to finish Tuesday, but that she did not expect lawyers to make opening statements until Wednesday. If jury selection took more than a day, Jackson said, opening statements would take place after that ends Wednesday.
The lawyers also smoothed out final logistics with the judge for the trial. At one point, Rogow asked if Jackson could speak more closely into the microphone, as he was having trouble hearing her.
"No one's ever told me that they can't hear me before," Jackson said. "That's a new piece of information, and I will do that, best I can."
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDonald Trump's Headed Back to the White House. But First, a Sentencing?
Corporate Prosecutions 'Less Likely' Under Next Trump DOJ, Observers Say
Judicial Nominee Says Criminal Defense Background Will Bring Diverse Ideas to State Appellate Court
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250